The Fraternity Problem

In March, Caitlin Flanagan explored the bizarre accidents and violent crimes that plague Greek houses: kids falling off roofs, severe hazing, even sexual assault, including one case at Wesleyan University that the author detailed. Flanagan argued that in many incidents, the fraternity and the school attempt to shift blame, and liability, onto the victims. The New Yorker’s Andrea DenHoed advised, “If you know anyone in a fraternity, you should probably tell them to read this article, and to stay off the roof.”

In my five short years since graduating from Trinity College, the lens through which I saw—and accepted—the binge drinking and seemingly harmless behaviors at fraternities has shifted away from rose-colored.

There is no denying the fun of dressing up for frat parties; the delight of recognition as we called a brother to grant us preferential entrance on a Saturday night; the camaraderie of grinding, intoxicated, with our fellow classmates, shoes slipping in the slime of a frat basement.

I chose to see the experience through said rose-colored lens for my own benefit. But the realistic portrait that Caitlin Flanagan paints in her article is undeniable. Those accounts are truths. Is the importance of my college recreation favored over the physically and mentally injurious escapades cited (never mind the sexist and demeaning elements of these activities)? For that matter, were we as a student body collectively so insular that we were unable to imagine weekend entertainment sans Greek life?

I don’t know if eradicating fraternities altogether is the answer. (Am I still a few years of maturity away from this conclusion?) But I applaud Flanagan for crafting an essay so profound that I have been forced to make these admissions.

Liz MolanoBoston, Mass.

I am a proud member of the Beta Theta Pi fraternity, and like countless others, my life was immeasurably enriched by my fraternity experience. However, the reality of the incidents that Caitlin Flanagan mentions hits close to home. I was attending the University of Idaho when two Greek students drunkenly fell from fraternity houses. Many close to me were victims of sexual assault. I’ve taken friends to the hospital fearing they would die from alcohol poisoning. Instead of wasting energy trying to gloss over the dark stains of the current system, let us sincerely redouble our efforts to reaffirm why our organizations exist in the first place: to cultivate our intellect; to be of service to our community; to make us trustworthy, gentlemen, leaders. John Wooden, the famous basketball coach and a member of Beta Theta Pi, said this best: “Be more concerned with your character than your reputation.”

Garrett LammWashington, D.C.

I think most of this could be solved by kicking campus police and college administrations out of sexual-assault investigations entirely. Colleges simply stand to gain too much from keeping their sexual-assault statistics down to carry out a truly impartial investigation. Leave things like parking tickets and loud-music citations to the campus police, and if sexual assault is alleged, report it to the city police—who don’t have the same vested interest in the outcome. The increased impartiality gives the alleged victim a fairer shake if the accusation is true, and gives the alleged attacker a chance to clear his name (without the stigma of “Oh, the school just covered it up”) if the accusation is false. Better for everyone involved.

JamesAllenTheAtlantic.com comment

Caitlin Flanagan opts for the simplistic view when trying to account for the terrible deeds and occurrences she discovered on college campuses—she seeks to succinctly place the blame on a single entity and avoids the larger issues at play. Fraternities are made up of individuals, and as she points out, their parties include friends and guests. If the universities had abolished the fraternities in her story, the individuals involved would not have vanished; a simple tour of any off-campus housing would find that much alternative housing owned by slumlords does not meet the most-basic building codes.

Eliminating a fraternity also eliminates the structure it provides—members are responsible for themselves, but also to one another and to the organization as a whole. The potential rape, suicide, or drug overdose in a fraternity is the responsibility of all its members. I do not believe these issues disappear with the closing of a fraternity’s doors; rather, they persist with fewer barriers and safety nets.

When I was a student at the University of Oregon, where the percentage of the student population in the Greek system was in the single digits, non-Greek house parties prevailed. There was drinking, sexual assaults, fights, collapsing decks, and seemingly each year police in riot gear shooting tear gas to stop parties that had grown out of control. It made me wonder about the opportunity cost of eliminating the Greek system. How many men and women might have learned from the mistakes of older fraternity brothers or sorority sisters? Could an accident have been avoided if a student had been surrounded by friends who treated him or her as a sibling? How many fights would have been broken up by peer-elected leaders who otherwise would have had to answer to school administrators and a national headquarters?

Removing the Greek system would not alleviate the perils of young men and women being set free to learn on their own. It would only remove an easy target to blame for their inevitable fallibility, and the structure that arose to help guide them through college and life. Perhaps this is the source of the resistance to closing fraternity doors, as opposed to some blind need to survive at any cost, as suggested by the article.

Michael ConnollyPortland, Ore.

Here’s my perspective as a fraternity member and a former president of a 120-man chapter at a public university in the Midwest: fraternity houses are inherently dangerous, and they are a hell of a lot of fun.

The exhaustive litany of falling-induced injuries outlined in the article doesn’t surprise me. We had a tradition—an incredibly stupid tradition—of putting the chapter-room sofas up on the roof of our house and playing a drinking game that involved driving golf balls off the roof, toward campus. It was moronic, dangerous, and really, really fun. It was also just dumb luck that no one ever took a three-story header onto the driveway.

But here’s the thing. Now that I’m an adult and a father, I have a lot of ambivalence about the fraternity experience, because of the rampant, accepted, institutional abuse of alcohol. I was in college in the 1990s, right after fraternities banned kegs and started the BYOB ticketing system described in the article. My fraternity’s national organization paid for me and my fellow executive-board members to attend leadership training in Chicago, where we were taught how to run a fraternity: recruitment, alumni relations, university relations, finances, and risk management. Lots of risk management.

Contrary to what is described in the article, our national made it clear that we (the 20-year-olds elected by the membership) were responsible and liable for any wrongdoing. In a session reminiscent of Scared Straight!, we were told point-blank about our parents’ being sued if we violated the national risk-management policy. Story after story about people falling down stairs, falling into bonfires, falling out of windows, fights, sexual assaults, etc., terrified us. I think there were eight exec-board positions; three of us were always stone-cold sober at every party, trying our damnedest to keep a lid on the organic chaos that is a fraternity mixer. Every problem—and thankfully all of ours were minor (property damage and scuffles)—was caused by drunkenness.

Valyrian SteelTheAtlantic.com comment

I understand that the article is directed mainly at parents of college kids, and focused on the administrative and institutional aspects of fraternities rather than fraternity life itself. However, I don’t understand how Flanagan could have reported this story for a year without interviewing several fraternity members, or how the 14,000-word story could have been published without a single quote from any college student, frat brother or otherwise. (There is a quote from Jane Doe, the sexual-assault victim at Wesleyan, but it is from her comments to police, not an interview with Flanagan.) College kids are at the crux of this story—they are the ones being injured, assaulted, and killed on a regular basis. Why were they denied a voice in this story?

Katherine MiraniEvanston, Ill.

Wesleyan University supports efforts to draw attention to the problem of sexual violence on college campuses. Brutal assaults like the one described in The Atlantic’s article can be traumatic for those directly involved and painful for any community. Our priority is to care for survivors, vigorously adjudicate offenses, and create a campus climate that affirms the right of everyone to learn free from the threat of sexual violence. To make it clear: we believe it’s always wrong to blame survivors for their assaults, and we reject the implications to the contrary in the article.

With input from students, faculty, and outside experts, Wesleyan has been working to prevent sexual violence, while enhancing the capacity to respond to the needs of survivors and to apprehend and punish the guilty. As Wesleyan President Michael S. Roth put it: “Violence of any kind has no place on our campus, and sexual violence is particularly pernicious in that it plays on social stereotypes and traditions of exclusion. We applaud groups active across the country, like Know Your IX, which are calling on students to stand up for their right to study in environments free from discrimination, harassment, and violence.”

We are not at liberty to comment on the specific case described in the article. We do consider productive conversations about the problem of sexual violence and how to eliminate it critical, and we appreciate the opportunity to participate in those discussions.

Will the Editors Be Robots?

Good news for Atlantic subscribers: we have seen the media landscape in 2028, and the magazine is still going strong. At least, that is, according to the recent RoboCop remake, in which a conservative media host played by Samuel L. Jackson prominently features a mock cover of the magazine to promote robotic law enforcement. On the downside, the cover says “Fall Issue,” so we may be down to a quarterly production cycle by then. But don’t worry. Your subscription rate will be reduced accordingly.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.